Van Jones' Crime:

[WillowTree]

What is the new exonerating evidence?

No clue. As I said, I'm not a Mumia supporter.

But there seem to be a whole lot of people convinced that whatever new evidence they've gathered is convincing. And they have every right to voice their opinion about it.

Just as I thought.

 

[WillowTree]

Official Daniel Faulkner Website

 

[WillowTree]

Transcripts









you should be able to find all transcripts here.

 

[Liability]

You should consider trying NOT to prove that you are a brain dead liberoidal schmuck. It would require massive effort on your part and is prety much destined to fail, but it might be worthwhile just to have you doing something else that doesn't always reaffirm that you ARE a brain dead liberoidal schmuck.

LOTS of perfectly valid convictions result, eventually, in applications to have the cases re-reviewed (even after the appeals process has been exhasuted) allegedly on the basis of "newly discovered evidence."

It takes a special kind of imbecile (CONGRATULATIONS, you ARE ALREADY A WINNER) to buy the line of garbage which that cop killing cock-gobbler is trying to foist of as newly discovered evidence.

The First Amendment by the way, you moron, deals with freedom of speech, assembly, the press and religion. It has nothing to do with objecting to a cop killer getting endless bites at the apple to evade his responsibility for being a cop killer.

FRY Mumia!

Personally insulting someone may make you feel better, but it doesn't help you win an argument. In fact, if you use such a tactic and are proven wrong, it makes you look like a moron.

I insulted you? OH poor boo-boo. I realize that offends you, you hypocritcial gasbag. I mean all you did was to stupidly and baselessly argue that I was somehow "unAmerican." **** off. You hypocrites deserve no quarter.

Now, the First Amendment would cover the right of the Mumia supporters to express their feelings on the case. That would be the "freedom of speech".

Completely irrelevant since I had not ever said, suggested or implied that the supporters should be barred from expressing their insipid "feelings." It's not my fault that you cannot read or comprehend uncomplicated English sentences, you moron.

As far as getting "endless bites of the apple" I'm not aware of Mr Mumia getting more than ONE bite of the apple. Perhaps you have some record of a retrial or even a review of the case? Because I can't find one.

Pretty weak. The last one was in the 3rd Circuit. Libs widely expected something new. They didn't get it of course. The SCOTUS DID reject the appeal from the 3rd Circuit determination. Prior to the 3rd Circuit, of course, the case had already run its course through the State appeals process. I guess you just missed ALL the news.

Now, personally, I don't necessarily AGREE with the people who think Mr Mumia is innocent, but that doesn't make them wrong.

Wow. That's a very insightful revelation. Thanks for sharing it.

And it certainly doesn't make it right to try to stop them from exercising their FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT to speak out for what they feel is right.

Good information. And if you stumble upon anybody who HAS argued that those morons shouldn't have freedom of speech to make their ignorant claims, let us all know. So far, however, the closest you've come seems to be to be your stupid, incoherent and erroneous effort to make that allegation against me.

 

[WillowTree]

April 6, 2009
U.S. Supreme Court rejects Mumia Abu-Jamal’s appeal for a new trial






U.S. Supreme Court rejects Mumia Abu-Jamal’s appeal for a new trial | San Francisco Bay View






so evidently the SCOTUS sees no exonerating evidence.

 

[Ravi]

Sweet!

Because someone has a differing view on a legal case than a rightwing nut that is also reason to exclude them from employment.

What a bunch of assholes.

 

[garyd]

If that were the only blemish on his resume it wouldn't be a problem.

Let's put it this way, how would you feel about a caucasian president making a Czar out of say the grand dragon of the KKK? Who is, based upon the two mens various statements, no more of a racist than is Mr. Van Jones.

 

[Lycurgus]

He called Republicans assholes. A lot of US agree with this.

Bush called a Times reporter a major asshole and never apologized. Cheney told Leahy in the Senate to go **** himself. The right thought this was so manly. I guess whites can say shit a black can't?

He signed a petition that basically was saying they weren't completely happy with the 9-11 investigation - Duh?

Glenn ( as smart as a fly on shit) Beck didn't start this. He jumped on the bandwagon after a rather wealthy oil man started the attack on Van Jones. Too much of the green job stuff isn't good for big oil.

The current RNC is morally corrupt and empty of any plans except to attack Obama and give more tax cuts to the rich.

They do come up with some really nice patriotic sounding names for all their little attack groups, howerver.

ah boy, here goes gayboy with his nose up Bush's ass again.

Gayboy, only you could find ways to try and justify a man like Van Jones!

 

[Ravi]

If that were the only blemish on his resume it wouldn't be a problem.

Let's put it this way, how would you feel about a caucasian president making a Czar out of say the grand dragon of the KKK? Who is, based upon the two mens various statements, no more of a racist than is Mr. Van Jones.

Since Robert Byrd is a Senator and so was Strom Thurmond, I think your point falls flat. I may not agree with the opinions of others, in fact I might think they are total fucktards, but as long as they aren't engaging in an illegal activity or calling for the overthrow of the government I have no reason to demand they step down. Oh, yeah, I would laugh at them but that is it.

I don't understand the McCarthyistic attitude...IMO it is unAmerican.

 

[Harry Dresden]

He called Republicans assholes. A lot of US agree with this.

Bush called a Times reporter a major asshole and never apologized. Cheney told Leahy in the Senate to go **** himself.

Ray the difference is.........if i called all the posters here assholes......or just you.....know what im saying Ray?.....that reporter just MAY have been an asshole.....but ALL Republicans?....come on Ray.....

 

[Vast LWC]

You should consider trying NOT to prove that you are a brain dead liberoidal schmuck. It would require massive effort on your part and is prety much destined to fail, but it might be worthwhile just to have you doing something else that doesn't always reaffirm that you ARE a brain dead liberoidal schmuck.

LOTS of perfectly valid convictions result, eventually, in applications to have the cases re-reviewed (even after the appeals process has been exhasuted) allegedly on the basis of "newly discovered evidence."

It takes a special kind of imbecile (CONGRATULATIONS, you ARE ALREADY A WINNER) to buy the line of garbage which that cop killing cock-gobbler is trying to foist of as newly discovered evidence.

The First Amendment by the way, you moron, deals with freedom of speech, assembly, the press and religion. It has nothing to do with objecting to a cop killer getting endless bites at the apple to evade his responsibility for being a cop killer.

FRY Mumia!

Personally insulting someone may make you feel better, but it doesn't help you win an argument. In fact, if you use such a tactic and are proven wrong, it makes you look like a moron.

I insulted you? OH poor boo-boo. I realize that offends you, you hypocritcial gasbag. I mean all you did was to stupidly and baselessly argue that I was somehow "unAmerican." **** off. You hypocrites deserve no quarter.



Completely irrelevant since I had not ever said, suggested or implied that the supporters should be barred from expressing their insipid "feelings." It's not my fault that you cannot read or comprehend uncomplicated English sentences, you moron.



Pretty weak. The last one was in the 3rd Circuit. Libs widely expected something new. They didn't get it of course. The SCOTUS DID reject the appeal from the 3rd Circuit determination. Prior to the 3rd Circuit, of course, the case had already run its course through the State appeals process. I guess you just missed ALL the news.

Now, personally, I don't necessarily AGREE with the people who think Mr Mumia is innocent, but that doesn't make them wrong.

Wow. That's a very insightful revelation. Thanks for sharing it.

And it certainly doesn't make it right to try to stop them from exercising their FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT to speak out for what they feel is right.

Good information. And if you stumble upon anybody who HAS argued that those morons shouldn't have freedom of speech to make their ignorant claims, let us all know. So far, however, the closest you've come seems to be to be your stupid, incoherent and erroneous effort to make that allegation against me.

Nice. Do you ever respond to someone with a straight response rather than a bunch of epithets and meaningless insults? I hope you realize how truly retarded that makes you look.

Be that as it may...

The point of this entire conversation was NOT whether Mr Mumia is guilty or innocent. As I stated, I personally do not believe that Mr Mumia is innocent.

The Point was that people were arguing that the fact that Van Jones supported a re-trial for Mr Mumia, is a REASON HE SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO BE APPOINTED TO PUBLIC OFFICE.

Trying to discriminate against Mr Jones by disqualifying him for eligibility for a job based on his opinion of Mr Mumia's case IS an attempt at denial of MR JONES' first amendment rights. Especially since that opinion has nothing to do with the job in question.

 

[Vast LWC]

U.S. Supreme Court rejects Mumia Abu-Jamal's appeal for a new trial | San Francisco Bay View

so evidently the SCOTUS sees no exonerating evidence.

Well there you go. That's good information. As I said, I personally did not believe Mr Mumia was innocent in the first place.

However, again, none of that is a convincing argument that Mr Jones should not have tried to help Mr Mumia if he truly believed the man was innocent.

And his attempt to help a person he belived to be innocent should certainly not bar him from being appointed to public office.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'm a little concerned that Van Jones was a self proclaimed communist, and your good with that Ray Boy

That why Dems defend Van Jones!

 

[Vast LWC]

LOL! How is he infiltrating something if you are convinced already he's a communist. Oh my, a communist greenie flunky, the ******* horror.

I'm rather shocked at how many of you that are terrified of communists are acting like communists yourselves.

Frankly, I'm rather amused by the kettle/pot effect happening here.

Conservative radical Anarchists (AKA Libertarians) working in concert with various corporate entities are literally trying to undermine the government at the moment, and here they are still whining and spouting McCarthy-ite lines about "Communists".

I don't know if I'd go that far. None of the libertarians here have really commented on this story. It has, as far as I can tell, only been a concern of the rightwingers that pretend to be conservatives.

It would be very hard to believe that a libertarian would be able to justify keeping communist sympathizers from working for the government.

I agree, the people on this particular thread are probably not the Libertarian portion of that statement, but are more likely supporters of the "corporate entity" portion.

Whether wittingly or unwittingly, Libertarians/Anarchists have become pawns of the champions of Corporate Oligarchy.

 

[Vast LWC]

I'm a little concerned that Van Jones was a self proclaimed communist, and your good with that Ray Boy

That why Dems defend Van Jones!

I don't defend him because he's a Communist.

However, I will defend his right to BE a Communist and be allowed to live a normal life as a Communist, just as I would defend others' rights to be Libertarian/Anarchists.

 

[WillowTree]

U.S. Supreme Court rejects Mumia Abu-Jamal's appeal for a new trial | San Francisco Bay View

so evidently the SCOTUS sees no exonerating evidence.

Well there you go. That's good information. As I said, I personally did not believe Mr Mumia was innocent in the first place.

However, again, none of that is a convincing argument that Mr Jones should not have tried to help Mr Mumia if he truly believed the man was innocent.

And his attempt to help a person he belived to be innocent should certainly not bar him from being appointed to public office.

look at mr. jones in his totality, whydonchya?

 

[Oddball]

Van Jones' Crime:

Being an assshole.

 

[WillowTree]

U.S. Supreme Court rejects Mumia Abu-Jamal's appeal for a new trial | San Francisco Bay View

so evidently the SCOTUS sees no exonerating evidence.

Well there you go. That's good information. As I said, I personally did not believe Mr Mumia was innocent in the first place.

However, again, none of that is a convincing argument that Mr Jones should not have tried to help Mr Mumia if he truly believed the man was innocent.

And his attempt to help a person he belived to be innocent should certainly not bar him from being appointed to public office.

I provided you with a link to the transcripts. You should take an hour or two to read. But you will get the picture of the goings on long before that. It will tell you a lot. a whole lot.

 

[Meister]

I'm a little concerned that Van Jones was a self proclaimed communist, and your good with that Ray Boy

That why Dems defend Van Jones!

I don't defend him because he's a Communist.

However, I will defend his right to BE a Communist and be allowed to live a normal life as a Communist, just as I would defend others' rights to be Libertarian/Anarchists.

I agree with you on this....I just don't think he should have access to the Whitehouse or a lending ear from Obama. He stands for nothing that this great country fought for with his politics.

 

[Lycurgus]

GAYBOY .............. Van Jones is simply one more instance of Obama screwing up and dropping his cloak letting us see into the real Obama. Hell, Van Jones makes the Rev. Wright look like Saint Wright! LOL

But of course Obama never really knew about Van Jones views! hahaha